Loaded Orygun - Klamath basin

NRC Reverses: Water Good For Klamath Fish After All

torridjoe — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:23:45 GMT

Remember this?

Conservation groups seeking removal of four aging Klamath River dams near the California border welcomed a report Wednesday by the National Research Council confirming studies indicating that salmon and other fish need more water.

This report is a major victory for salmon, commercial fishermen, Native Americans, and everyone else who cares about the health of the Klamath River,” said Steve Pedery, conservation director for Oregon Wild, based in Portland.

{more, and why this sucks for Gordon Smith, below}

The report comes as federal agencies prepare a new evaluation of salmon and endangered stocks of the Klamath fish known as suckers, as interest groups try to negotiate a settlement of water issues, and as federal regulators decide the fate of the four dams on the river, which runs through Southern Oregon and Northern California.
The battle over water management in the high desert basin has pitted farmers and irrigators against Indian tribes, fishermen and environmental groups.

A leader of the National Research Council study said it agreed with recommendations from Utah State University researchers led by Thomas Hardy that more water would help increase salmon runs.

If you were an LO reader from the old site, you probably remember the discoveries we made about the Klamath fish kills and Gordon Smith's surprisingly energetic role in overturning the very study the NRC validated this week--the Hardy Phase II Reports, which we noted was believed by most of the scientific community as the best available flow study data available. The conclusion was basically that more water was probably best for the fish, and deficient water held the potential for disaster.

There were some detractors of Hardy, mostly favorable to agribusiness and groups like the Klamath Water User's Association of more recent irrigation concerns along the river, but no one was able to proffer a better predicition model, or rebut the science used by Hardy and his colleagues for theirs.

So let's sum it up for clarity: in 2002, the Hardy study was the best science, and said that not enough water would kill the fish. But turning off the spigot on farmers frightened Gordon Smith in his LAST election, so Rove and Cheney got involved and through their collective maneuverings got the NRC to declare the Hardy work not peer-reviewed and thus untenable, opting instead for the Bush-proposed Bureau of Reclamation "what-if" study.

Now, five years later the same agency looked at the same two studies and said y'know, that first one was--heh--right all along. Fancy that! Who could have anticipated...nevermind. And Gordon Smith bragged about essentially doing whatever it took to find a way around the law that said the fish took precedence, and the science that said without the water the fish would die.

And now the science he rested his bogus excuse for political pandering on, has been ruefully debunked by the same people who backed it in a happier tyrannical time. As Eric Clapton is my witness, this will BE an issue in the general election if I have to stalk the man in a fish suit after school starts next year.*

Ironically, it almost seems Smith is daring Democrats to take him on and "go against the farmers," a hapless ruse but one that hopes to tap a political consultant's many neuroses--constituency alienation. From the same recent article mentioning Merkley's DSCC fundraising (and behind a sub wall), these comments by Smith spokseman RC Hammond:

[Hammond] said Smith has a track record of supporting rural issues, such as disaster aid for farmers and fishermen. Hammond pointed to Smith’s intervention on behalf of Klamath basin farmers in 2001 and his support for the current Farm Bill — he was one of only three Senate Republicans to vote for it — as evidence of Smith’s rural advocacy. He also criticized Merkley for refusing to discuss what he would have done in the Klamath basin, where a drought led to water being cut off to farmers for the 2001 irrigation season.
“(Smith) is someone in the Senate who will always stand up and fight for those who make their living off of the land,” Hammond said.

To me, that's chuztpah, and a very Rovian tactic: come out strongly with a total 180 spin on one of your vulnerabilities, and start calling into question the other guy's credibility on the issue instead. He says this, even AFTER being busted by the media for fibbing on the issue. It would be the original swiftboat attack, except that if Hammond is right that Merkley can't even say the fish should have gotten the water and everybody but Cheney and Smith knew it, he's no war hero on the issue.

The nominee is going to face this utter nonsense on a regular basis in the general--this black-is-white, up-is-down horseshit rhetoric that blatantly papers over serious issues of credibility and corruption, and just muddies the water. You cannot try to argue it; your only solution is to call it out for what it is, reject the framing and stick with good old glorious truth, like that sheepishly admitted to today by the NRC. I hope to Clapton that the person who is nominated has the sharpness to see it coming and parry it smartly and without fear of the boogeyman GOP attack.

By the way, why the sudden turnaround, do you wonder? Surely not the magnaminity or sudden conscience of the Bush administration. No, the environmental groups have another theory:

The new report also comes as a Bush-administration sponsored "settlement" group works on a deal that seeks to tie progress on Klamath River dam removal to controversial anti-environmental initiatives on Endangered Species Act enforcement in the Klamath Basin, commercial agricultural development on the area's National Wildlife Refuges, and reduced water flows in the Klamath River. The NRC’s findings are a major roadblock to the Bush administration’s behind-the-scenes drive to guarantee water deliveries to Klamath agribusiness without similar provisions for salmon.

*obvious examples of hyperbole not covered by any alleged pledge on Clapton's holy name.

Klamath Algae Becoming Intolerable

torridjoe — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:00:00 GMT

With a hat tip to Kos diarist bottsimons, the Crescent City (CA) Triplicate raises the alarm at the muck we're sending downstream:

High concentrations of toxic blue-green algae in the Klamath River last week spurred tribal and governmental agencies to post signs warning the public to avoid contact with the water.
Two reservoirs located up the Klamath River-Iron Gate and Copco-are believed to be the source of the algae blooms, and could help sway the debate on whether dams along the waterway should be removed.
The Yurok Tribe and California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board posted warnings on nearly 200 miles of the Klamath River starting from the mouth after levels of toxic algae (Microcystis aeruginosa) were found to be more than double the state-mandated thresholds.
"When the levels that we monitor get above those thresholds, we have a responsibility to warn the public of the threat," said Yurok Tribe Environmental Director Kevin McKernan.
Toxins released from the algae when it dies is known to cause severe liver damage after long-term exposure and can cause minor sickness, such as eye irritations, skin rash, vomiting and diarrhea, from limited contact.

{more}

So here's a story that may well not make the Oregon newscasts, at least beyond the Klamath broadcasters whose signal reaches into Siskiyou County, California, but it's definitely about Oregon for a couple of reasons. First of all, the blooms are being blamed on conditions in Upper Klamath Lake, which is in Oregon--and secondly because PacifiCorp, holder of several dams along the Klamath, is applying for license renewal. More on that in a moment, but here's the science part on the origins of the bloom--pretty interesting how connected everything is:

The algae comes from large blooms formed in the Iron Gate and Copco Reservoirs located upstream in Siskiyou County, where McKernon says the levels are astronomical.
"To put it in perspective, in the Copco and Iron Gate dams, (these numbers) are in the tens of millions of cells," he said, because the reservoirs provide a perfect habitat for the blue-green algae.
Klamt says nutrients from Upper Klamath Lake, the drainage of wetlands and agriculture along the upper Klamath River dumps nutrients into the river. These nutrients come into in the reservoirs and collect, he said, and with sunlight and heat, this creates a good environment for large blue-green algae blooms to flourish.
"The dams are like a reactor. They grow the algae really well," Klamt said. "All those things come together to grow that algae bloom."

He does go on to say that removing the dams may not get rid of the blooms--although it will reduce the chance for the necessary nutrients to grow.

As usual though, this is ultimately a story about money. PacificCorp wants its license so it can continue using dammed water to power the region. The salmon aren't so thrilled about it, given the lack of ladders, and the tribes really don't like it either (think Celilo). The algae can't help their cause. Even if it's not their fault overall, the conditions damming creates are at least partly to blame for the conditions. Low water levels, exacerbated by heat, can cause the algae to flourish. (Sound familiar?)

There's actually some hope one or more of the dams will be retired, and perhaps things can improve downriver again. Until then, sorry! Our bad!

Street Roots Joins The Chorus On Klamath

torridjoe — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:35:58 GMT

[Happy Labor Day weekend; as you can imagine we'll be taking it easy at LoadedO. Of course, that's only true for the front page; you can always keep the content fresh by writing a diary! Interesting diaries always stand a better chance of front-paging when regular traffic is slow...!]
If you haven't bought a Street Roots newspaper from a street seller in Portland lately, you really should pony up a dollar to one of the polite vendors and check them out again. While there was a certain charm to the sometimes-addled poems and honest but less substantive government rants of the past, it always felt more like charity to help a vendor, rather than something of real value that you were buying.

No more. Street Roots has joined the national chain of street papers, allowing it to share content and avail itself of a strong redesign. Even better, the poetry and street culture sections remain alongside hard news, intelligent editorial, and probing letters. Under Director/Editor Israel Bayer's hand, I now buy Street Roots for the paper itself--helping a self-starting vendor with 70% of the proceeds is icing on the cake.

And not only are they covering hard news, they're covering current news, and (OK, I'm biased) IMPORTANT news--like the 2008 elections, and whether Oregon is going to hold Gordon Smith accountable for actions like those leading to the fish kills of 2002.

{more}
In the August 17th edition SR talked with John DeVoe, Executive Director of WaterWatch, the Portland-based environmental organization dedicated to (duh) water issues. The subject turned quickly to the Klamath situation and how politics played a role in its playout:

In 2001, after a series of drought years, the federal government curtailed the amount of water that could be diverted into the Klamath irrigation project by the Bureau of Reclamation, and that caused a huge political uproar among the irrigators. I think it is important to note that within the project, irrigators still got about 68 percent of the water that they had contracts for with the Bureau of Reclamation. It is also important to note that everybody outside the project got all the water that nature provided that year, even though there was a drought. There was no curtailment by any agency of the state or federal government to those people, but the fact that there was a curtailment of water within the project caused this huge uproar.
You had elections coming up and the administration at the federal level got very interested in making political hay out of the situation. There were specific elections where you had people saying we can use this to our advantage. Then I think the directive came down from the White House and from high level Dept of Interior officials to get the science on the side of agriculture.
So the National Resource Council, the National Academy of Sciences were brought in and they were asked some questions that weren’t really appropriate to the situation. They were asked, “Can you say with a high level of certainty that the actions taken in 2001 vis-à-vis the water were scientifically justified to a very high level of certainty?” The NAS and the NCR came back and said, “We can’t say with a 100 degree certainty that those actions were justified.”
So then in 2002, you had the administration flip the situation around with complete deliveries to the irrigators with water from the Klamath River. The result was about 80,000 salmon — adult chinook salmon and some coho — died as they were staging for their migration up the river. There are differences of opinion on what the exact cause of the die-off was for those adult salmon. We say it was a lack of water, low flows due to the decisions in irrigation up-river.[emphs mine]

If you've been following along with our coverage, none of this should be new to you, but it's instructive to see our commentary repeated by subject experts like DeVoe. The first part I emphasized is something new, however. No one denies that irrigators in the basin had water restricted because of drought conditions and existing federal law. Gordon Smith makes it the centerpiece of his defense, saying essentially that he'll be damned if he lets any Oregonians have their water shut off by the feds.

But DeVoe makes two excellent points in this regard:

We're talking about irrigation project concerns. If you were just Joe Farmer, when the drought hit you got whatever water nature gave you. Already these are farmers privileged to have an irrigation claim to support otherwise arid soil.

For those actually in the project, they still got 68% of the water previously given to them. So any idea they got "shut off" is a load.

Our contention, and that of many others, is that the Klamath situation is just another example of politics over science. DeVoe totally agrees:

Well, I think it is coming to light now that this sort of intervention with science has happened across the administration, and across other agencies. You have the surgeon general standing up and saying, “I can’t make any decisions without interference from above.” You have people interfering with things like stem cell research. You have people interfering with environmental decisions that are supposed to be based on science. It runs across various fields and agencies with this administration, and I think it is unprecedented to see this level of interference.
I think the administration has been doing this for some time. You can look at the Columbia hydro-power system and all the lawsuits surrounding that and the government’s foot-dragging on actually implementing measures to recover Columbia River salmon and you can say that is another example where the administration dragged its feet. But the Klamath River is more of a direct intervention. Those are the two big ones in terms of Oregon.

Read the whole article, as DeVoe touches on more general questions of how to balance animal protection with the constant and growing requirements of agriculture. But what should not be forgotten is the unique bounty that the Klamath provides, and its importance in preserving the very vitality of the West:

We call the Klamath the Everglades of the West, and it really presents the most promising opportunity on the West Coast to restore a major river system. And I think we can do it in ways that don't displace people who want to be there and want to farm, and do it in ways that recognize the rights of Native Americans, commercial fishermen, the needs of the river, the wetlands and the basin.
It historically supported what may have been the largest concentration of waterfowl on the planet. So this is a place of international, planetary significance. It has species found nowhere else. It deserves a greater level of protection and restoration, and we are going to have to make some changes to get there. I am optimistic we can do it in a way that doesn't change people's way of life and gets us to the goal line.

DPO Catches On to Smith's Klamath Fudging

torridjoe — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 GMT

This is something I covered at length on Saturday, but it's great to see the sharpies over at the state Democratic Party digest the news over the weekend and then smack Gordon with it when everybody's back at work:

Oops, Smith did it again.
In the same week The Register-Guard criticizes U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) for not being honest about the Klamath River water diversion, he contradicts himself – twice – in an interview with The Bulletin.
“Does Gordon Smith think people will just believe anything he says, no matter how contradictory or untruthful?” DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith asked. “In the same month that he tells The Register-Guard there is no connection between the low water and the fish kill, he tells The Bulletin he never claimed there was no connection. Six years after publicly providing clear knowledge of Vice President Cheney’s direct intervention on Klamath, he says he was unaware that Cheney was directly involved. Time and time again Gordon Smith has let the truth become a casualty in his re-election bid. He continues to break the trust of Oregonians.”
...
Even after all the media coverage of Smith and the White House’s political coordination to abuse environmental and commercial resources to get him re-elected in 2002, Smith still acts like he can contradict the public record and no-one will notice. The 2002 Klamath River water diversion destroyed coastal fishing communities and garnered statewide and national media attention.
“Does Gordon Smith think he can mislead reporters, editors and Oregonians and get away with it?” Wood Smith asked. “It is sad to see a U.S. Senator consistently destroying his credibility.”

Owie. I'm ever so happily married, but if Ms. Wood-Smith keeps up this barrage of Smith truth-telling all the way to the election, I might need to start considering the appeal of a 2nd wife. (Or maybe I've been watching too much Big Love.)

Smith Fibs Again to Cover Tracks, Dares Us to Make it Campaign Issue

torridjoe — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:03:51 GMT

Man, we're reaching Gary Hart "Prove I'm a cheating sleazebag" territory here. Two more articles (one unfortunately behind the dratted subscriber firewall) have appeared in state media, as outlets continue to ask Gordon Smith (and now Greg Walden) about his actions and responses to the Klamath fish kill story.

The one I can't link to is from the Bend Bulletin, notoriously conservative among state media but covering what has now become serious news. In a piece published yesterday and headlined "Smith reverses course on salmon die-off," he tries to color previous remarks by fibbing further about what he said, while his spokesperson claims he's not reversing at all, and Democratic challenger Steve Novick nails exactly what he's doing. Check it out below the jump...

{more}
First, what Smith said:

Sen. Gordon Smith acknowledged Thursday that diverting Klamath River water to farmers may have played a role in the 2002 death of 77,000 salmon but said it can’t be blamed as the sole cause of the die-off.
The die-off has gained statewide attention recently, following a Washington Post series highlighting Vice President Dick Cheney’s intervention in the decision to restore Klamath River water to 1,000 farmers, after federal agencies decided endangered salmon and suckerfish needed the water to survive.
Smith in recent days has denied a connection between the water diversion and fish deaths. Last week he incorrectly said the die-off happened 18 months after the water diversion and later acknowledged his mistake.
“I’ve never said there wasn’t a connection,” Smith told The Bulletin. “I’m just saying you can’t blame it entirely on the diversion as being the exclusive cause of the salmon die-off.”
Portland activist Steve Novick, one of two Democratic candidates vying for Smith’s seat in 2008, said Smith appears to be shifting positions without saying so.
“When you catch him in a false statement or an untenable position, he simply moves onto a new position without ever acknowledging fault,” Novick said. [emph mine]

Let's first give Novick strong credit for paying attention to the issue but making the larger point that Smith is simply fudging with us when anyone tries to hold him to account. Why is Merkley not commenting, I wonder? I'd accept "not conversant with the issue enough," although not for long. Whoever is the nominee had better mention it. (More on that in a bit).

But the point I want to make here is that to cover up his first lie--there was no connection between water levels and the fish kill--he had to make up a new one: I never said there was no connection.

Oh really? Here's what he told the Register Guard around August 8:

"I don't know that there's a connection between water for sucker fish that went to farmers and salmon 18 months later that died of a gill disease," Smith said. "If there is, I am sorry that happened. I am not sorry for fighting for farmers. I have a responsibility for humankind."

Man, does that "humankind" crack bother me; like fishermen and the fish tourism industry doesn't affect "humankind?" But while he's not saying there's no connection, how different is saying "I don't know that there's a connection?" In practical intent, nothing.

No matter; according to The Oregonian three days later, he made it clear in no uncertain terms: "Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers." Perhaps Smith will argue with that characterization, but there's no question he is trying to pretend that what he fought for didn't have anything meaningful to do with what happened afterwards. Which is of course poppycock.

Even while admitting that there may have been SOME cause from low water, and that he didn't tell the truth when he said there was an 18 month gap, his spokesperson then claims he hasn't actually changed anything!

Smith’s spokesman refuted the idea that the Republican senator’s story has changed. Spokesman R.C. Hammond said the senator has consistently said the diversion may have contributed to the die-off but wasn’t the sole cause.
“He hasn’t changed what he’s been saying,” Hammond said.
Smith acknowledged that he asked President Bush to intervene after the water was turned off but said he doesn’t regret doing so. He added that he was unaware Cheney became directly involved in reversing the decision to keep water in the river.

Whoops! There's another lie, and wow is that one easy to bust him on. Once more for you who have missed it before, this is what Smith told a group of farmers in 2001, according to the Klamath Herald News:

“‘Dick Cheney stopped that order from coming down,’ Smith said. ‘He ordered the biologists back to Washington’ to see if there were some way to get around the conclusion that all available water must go to protect endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.

How could he be unaware, if he was telling them exactly what Cheney was going to do? And furthermore, as far as the Washington Post made it seem in their expose on Dick Cheney, the news he was telling them was not necessarily public information.

The other article comes from OPB, which caught up with Smith, Rep. Greg Walden (OR-2) and Sen. Ron Wyden in Redmond. As before, he answers charges that he made shit up, by changing the subject:

The [R-G] said that in a meeting with its editors and reporters, Smith "ignored and omitted" key information about the 2002 decision making process. Smith responded that he thinks his critics forget how unhappy farmers were in 2002 when the water was originally cut off.
Gordon Smith: "There's a lot of revisionism going on. If you look back at the editorial pages and the overwhelming feeling of Oregonians, that when water was cut off to farmers for the first time in 95 years, that was a wrong that needed to be righted."

How does that respond to omitting and ignoring key information? And which editorial pages and overwhelming feeling among Oregonians, that anyone has documented, is he referring to? It's a bullshit answer.

While we're on this article, I think it's time to start pointing the finger at Walden, whose name comes up almost as often when you talk about pressure being put on scientists to change their conclusions in order to satisfy partisan policy. Unashamedly, Walden just tells us to move on. Nothing to see here, people:

"The key here is that we should be focusing on the future. You've got the settlement group meeting, they're trying to come up with a basin-wide plan that is backed by the fisherman, farmers, tribes and the agencies. They hope to have their proposal public and ready to go in November. A lot of the noise out their, I think, is designed to blow up that process."

Shorter Walden: Pay no attention to the conniving Congressman behind the curtain!

And finally, this dare from Smith. Ohhhh, baby--you're going to regret this one, I promise you:

Gordon Smith: "I make no apology for helping with my influence. I didn't make the decision. I encouraged it, I support, and I defend it today."
When asked if he's worried that the Klamath River Basin will emerge as one of the key issues of the 2008 election, Smith said he hoped so. If the current political climate is any indication, he may get his wish.

You bet your ass, OPB--you bet your ass.

Listen to TJ's KPOJ Segment on Smith Today

torridjoe — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:50:44 GMT

I knew when I slapped the snooze button this morning at 6:35, it was probably a mistake if I wanted to get out of the house and down to the KPOJ studios by 7:30. It's not always pleasant to be right; at 7:15 I woke up again and realized I wouldn't be able to make the in-studio gig that Carl Wolfson and Heidi Tauber had set up for me. But thanks to the magic of Alexander Graham Bell and Motorola, doing the interview by phone sufficed, and so another radio segment goes into the LO Publicity Whore archives...

...but before it does, why not take a listen? You can hear the clip this way, helpfully copied from the KPOJ Pojcast page. Go to about the middle of the audio file; I come on after the news at 7:30. We talked mostly about Gordon Smith's no good, horrible very bad week, and how he's digging himself a deeper hole with the state media from his responses on the fish kill scandal.

I don't have a regular gig like Kari at BlueO, but lately I've been on at least a couple times a month--so maybe the best thing is just to listen to Heidi and Carl EVERY DAY so you don't miss me. :) (Or you could blow it off and listen to the Pojcast when I tell you about it, like now--but that's just so lazy of you.)

Fruits of the FOIA, Part One: Hits at Interior

torridjoe — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:00:00 GMT

About a month ago I filed Freedom of Information Act requests at a number of federal agencies involved in the decisions over the Klamath Basin. I've gotten letters back from everyone acknowledging the request, and they get 20 business days to give a response. Sometimes the response is "we got nuthin," which is what a Marine Fisheries regional office told me. Other times, if you're lucky, you hear back a straightforward answer: here's a summary of what we have; order what you want copied by item number.

The Office of Secretary of the Interior has returned a summary of several "conversations" Senator Gordon Smith had with officials at Interior. They stretch back as far as February 2001, one month after George Bush's inauguration and two months before the earliest evidence we knew of that Smith had gotten himself involved. The first sign the media seemed to catch wind was after Smith's letter of March 30, 2001 to the White House, asking for "regulatory relief." After weeks of fruitless searching for that letter, it looks like we scored a hit on the Interior servers for it. And uh, actually quite a bit more. In fact, there's some stuff that sure looks like he's pressuring scientists to change their conclusions. Whatever he was saying--and we'll find out--he was doing a lot of talking to a lot of people.

But hey, let's look through it together.
{more}
They did two searches; one with "Gordon Smith" and "Klamath," and one "Gordon Smith" and "Endangered Species." The ESA one is just one page, with three "conversations." The first listing jumps out at you; February 9, 2001: Smith lobbies the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service about their plans to hold water for salmon and suckerfish. Barely had the decision gone down before Smith was taking on the scientists over their findings. THAT is what he doesn't want you to know. We'll be asking for that conversation.

The second listing is just run of the mill interest by Western Senators in delisting wolves(!), but the third is the flip of the complaint letters to the scientists over their findings. Once the NAS sent down their findings, Smith hopped right on and told the Secretary of Interior to get on the stick implementing those findings. Which they did. Which was a terrible mistake. Which was ruled improperly and illegally done. We'll be asking for that one.

There are three pages of documents under the Smith+Klamath search. Page one is here. The first two listings don't jump out at you, but they're definitely related to the Klamath Basin in some way, and he's still expressing scientific concern to the scientists, so we're asking for those conversations. The next item is a bipartisan letter to the White House cced to DOI on behalf of farm relief; we'll leave that be.

Then you have what appears to be a summary of the response to Smith. I'm not sure yet what WB is in WBR; WHR is White House Referral, and it indicates not one but two letters to the President from Smith, that were then referred to Secretary Norton. That one looks intriguing; we're getting this one. The next item has no description whatsoever. That's a definite yes.

The last item on page one is a two-fer with Greg Walden to a "Science Advisor" in 2002, recommending "immediate review of study known as Hardy Study re Klamath River." The Hardy Phase II report was a set of flow measurement models that formed the basis of the federal biologists' opinion protecting the fish. Here you have two Members of Congress attempting to impugn the best available science, because they don't like what it says. I'm dying to know their reasoning. This is a big yes. Oh--note one of the recipients: Sue Ellen Woolridge, the official named as the midlevel bureaucrat that Dick Cheney put the touch on to start the ball rolling at Interior for Smith.

I'm not sure why these listings aren't in chronological order by correspondence date, but they're not. On page two we see the precursor to the last item on page one--a complaint from Smith, Walden and Wally Herger (R-CA2) sharing their "concern" about the Hardy study, amazingly all the way back to February 7, 2001. The summary isn't shy about the topic of the conversation. The authors

question its science, credibility and the fact that our constituents (ie water users) have been excluded. Ask for an immediate suspension of the Hardy Study pending a complete review, audit by the IG, and scientific peer review.

WTF? Gordon Smith tried to tell farmers the government poisoned suckerfish. He tried to tell the R-G the fish died of gill disease, something his own ally thought absurd. He says there's no evidence the water cutoff led to the fish kill. THIS guy is expressing concern about the science of the Hardy study? Excuse me, perfesser!

The rest of the items on page 2 we're going to ask for, but they tend to repeat the theme in a familiar pattern: express concern, recommend implementation of now-corrected plan, thank compliant federal agency personnel for doing what he asked. The only other notable entry is what appears to be the originally known letter to the White House, which we now know was either the first or the second letter. Busy correspondent, that Gordon!

There's only one entry on page 4, but just from the summary entry, it may be the best example of the pressure Smith was putting on the lower agency personnel. Dated March 14, 2001, the same trio of Members thanked Woolridge for their meeting two days earlier, but

felt that urgency of situation was not sufficiently conveyed at meeting. Asks that WBR be restored historic operating flexibility, instead of allowing FWS and NMFS unreasonable requirements. Wants Upper Klamath Lake filled to capacity.

So let me see if I have the timeline right. February 7th, they complained to the Secretary about this damned scientific conclusion that was going to short farmers. On March 12th, they got a meeting with Cheney's designated fixer. On March 14th, they complained louder in a "no, we really mean it" letter. And they were still bugging her a year later about it, until finally the fix was found, and then it was time to make sure they knew they'd been beaten, with a quick thanks to the hacks at the top who made it happen. That's just great. So yeah, I'd like to see what that's all about.

This could get interesting...

Reg Guard Op-Ed: Smith is justifying "ideologically driven political positions"

carla — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:03:00 GMT

Gordon Smith's fish kill story is looking like a full blown scandal.

And the Register Guard in Eugene doesn't like what it sees from Smith:

The problem with Sen. Gordon Smith's defense of the Bush administration's 2002 decision to divert Klamath Lake water for irrigation isn't that the Oregon Republican is wobbly on the facts. It's that he's willing to bend and selectively omit the facts to justify ideologically driven political positions.

Ouch.

This just isn't going away, is it Senator?

Fish, Facts and Gordon Smith

Steve Novick — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:02:27 GMT

Gordon Smith's recent remarks on the Klamath fish kill underscore a persistent theme. Gordon Smith doesn't take facts seriously. He doesn't take science seriously. And ultimately, he doesn't take his job seriously.

Smith said that the fish kill occurred 18 months after the water diversion - when it was actually only six months later. He said there was no evidence that the water diversion caused the fish kill - ignoring the study by the California Department of Fish and Game.
But this is nothing new for Gordon Smith. This is the same fellow who was writing in late 2003 that scientists are evenly divided on whether burning fossil fuels causes global warming. This is the same fellow who said that under George W. Bush, real wages have risen for "the first time since Ronald Reagan" -- somehow overlooking several years of the Clinton Administration. This is the same fellow who said that his own, special, massive tax cut for multinational corporations would create hundreds of thousands of jobs -- and has since failed to own up to the fact that in reality, the drug companies, such as Pfizer, who were major beneficiaries of his bill, have laid off thousands of people.

If Gordon Smith simply said, "In a contest between farmers and fish, I want farmers to win," you could almost respect the guy. But he won't say that. Instead, he will ignore science, reinvent history, believe whatever he has to believe to escape the implications of his policies.

That's not acceptable. Oregonians might re-elect an intellectually honest, well-informed, genuine conservative. But I don't think we'll re-elect someone who doesn't bother to learn simple facts that a United States Senator worthy of the title really ought to know. I don't think we'll re-elect someone who makes false pronouncements on issues of fact without, apparently, having made any effort to check the facts first. I don't think that that we'll re-elect a Senator who, like George W. Bush himself, consistently puts ideology and politics before science and responsible government.

Gordon Smith Awakes the Snoozing Media

torridjoe — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:00:00 GMT

If you're reading this, you can't likely have escaped the fact that the Klamath story has very quickly become part of the conversation in Gordon Smith's run for re-election. The first batch of stories began right at the turn of August, the same time that Jeff Merkley was entering the race.

Then there was a second wave, started by Dave Steves at the Register-Guard. If there is one member of the traditional media which has really given the story the focus and the investigative interest it deserves, it's been Steves and the R-G. Bravo. Last Thursday they published the story on their interview with Smith, where the Senator sided "with humankind" and said he was unaware of what Cheney had done, and that the kill wasn't related to what he did since it took place 18 months later and was the result of "gill disease." Noting the stir it caused, the editors then decided to print the entire transcript. Again, Bravo. The various errors and mendacities in his responses got a going over from us here.

We're now in the middle of the third wave, which developed over the weekend and crested with the TV spot Carla showed us yesterday. The Oregonian picked up on the R-G's interview and decided well hell, let's ask Gordon ourselves. That caused the R-G to return the favor and begin asking some of the same questions we had had, and checking Smith on his backtracks. They discovered that some of the things he said were crap--and even allies were willing to say so. This piece (again, by Steves at the R-G) is the best piece of traditional journalism so far on the story.

So what has Smith actually said, and what has been said about those answers? What does this flurry of sudden coverage portend for both the Senate race?
Is there a developing reality that the blogs in the state of Oregon are pushing its political coverage?

{the answers below!}
Both the Oregonian and R-G pieces published on Saturday take dead aim at Smith's comments and rationalizations, and to me mark a turning point in the story by fact checking and starting to reach the conclusion that Smith really is part of the whole Klamath fiasco.

After seeing him pick up on the R-G interview, I emailed Jeff Mapes at The O and told him there were at least two lies in what Smith said: that the gap between low water and the fish kill was 18 months, and that he claimed no awareness of what Cheney was up to during all of this. I published the contradictory evidence in our fact-checking piece linked above. StopGordonSmith.com tells the same essential story:

‘I was not familiar with all the things the vice president was doing,’ Smith said, referring to the Washington Post's account.’”
(The Register-Guard, 8-8-07)
Yet, in 2001, Smith demonstrated clear and direct knowledge of Cheney’s involvement.
“‘Dick Cheney stopped that order from coming down,’ Smith said. ‘He ordered the biologists back to Washington’ to see if there were some way to get around the conclusion that all available water must go to protect endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.”
(Herald and News, 4-9-01)

Then TheO took on the other fib:

The senator first raised the issue Tuesday in an interview with the Eugene Register-Guard in which he sought to distance the fish deaths from the water diversions to farmers.
"I don't know that there's a connection between water for suckerfish that went to farmers, and salmon 18 months later that died of a gill disease," Smith told the Register-Guard's editorial board.
Smith subsequently acknowledged in an interview with The Oregonian that the fish kill came about six months after water was first diverted to farms, but he argued that the die-off could have occurred even without the diversions.

Someone must have mentioned that the times he spent discussing the fish kill during the runup to his 2002 re-election, SIX MONTHS after the water was cut, may tend to incriminate him. So he fessed up.

One thing I didn't press the major media on was his claim that the fish died of "gill disease," a disease fish generally get when there isn't enough water. Although he presented it as a rationale for his action to overturn prior science, he said in the interview that he "believed" it was the disease, and they can't prove the water cutoff was absolutely the 100% proximate cause. But a non-hostile witness to all of this begs to differ (strongly and disparagingly) with Smith:

Not everyone questioning Smith's statements is a political foe. Commercial fishing advocate Glenn Spain said Smith has been an ally over the years. But after reading the senator's comments, Spain said Smith's version of those events in 2002 did not square with his own. Spain said there was no question that diverting water reduced river flows to such low levels that returning salmon died in the lower Klamath River, with the death toll estimated as high as 77,000.
Smith attributing the dead fish to gill disease, Spain said, "is sort of like saying lung cancer kills smokers, not smoking.
"The triggering cause is low water flow. And then the fish die of a dozen different diseases, all of which are related to high water temperatures, crowding fish, stress and the fact that they can't get up the river ... because there's not enough water for them to travel in," said Spain, the Northwest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "All of those were in play, but they all derived from low flows."
That was the same conclusion of a peer-reviewed evaluation of the fish kill, published in 2004 by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Game. Set. Match. What strikes me as so unseemly about this (other than the sad spectacle of a guy on prevaricator's autopilot) is that clearly Smith doesn't know the first thing about what went on in the Klamath beyond what the irrigators told him and what the White House said they'd do for him. He can't come close to a plausible answer on the fish kill, and doesn't even remember when it was. But somehow he's got the cojones to bully career scientists, telling them their data is out of date and not to use it. (What's that? Where'd you hear that, TJ? I'm glad you asked. It has come in a summary log of correspondence between Senator Smith and the Department of Interior, and soon I will have the exact correspondence in my hands. More on that in a bit, tease tease.) Only a Republican would manage to combine ignorance on the subject at hand, with a domineering attempt to override the opinions of thoes who are actually fairly well informed. It's like me telling him what temperature to freeze his peas at...and being wrong.

Traditional media, please expose this guy. Aren't you getting the sense he's been playing you? If this story develops as it should, it will dog Smith the entire way through to next November. The Democratic nominee will hammer him on it, just like the TV station did--Smith, Cheney, pictures of dead fish. And you know we'll keep you abreast of what we learn about just how deep it got for Gordon. If you'll excuse a little cap-feathering, this is a big, big victory for nontraditional media. This story began with us, we're still leading it, and we're forcing the major media to cover it. The R-G:

The left-leaning Oregon blogs, Loaded Orygun and BlueOregon, had been criticizing Smith's involvement in the Klamath water diversion for days before his editorial board appearance. After his comments there were published, those blogs scrutinized and questioned Smith's assertions, as has the national progressive DailyKos blog.

Gordon Smith and the Klamath fish-kill: you didn't read about it anywhere before you read it here. And if you want to know more about it that no one else has published, stick around.

Smith/Klamath Fish kill makes the tee-vee

carla — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:09:55 GMT

Drip..drip..drip.....

Another local news outlet is reporting that Gordon Smith is siding with anti-science Dick Cheney on the Klamath Basin fish kill.

This time it's KVAL TV in Eugene:

Smith maintains there's no evidence it was caused by water diversions to farmers. Smith also defended Cheney's role in intervening with Federal Officials to help farmers in the Klamath Basin.
The House Natural Resources Committee is investigating whether Cheney exerted improper political influence to override scientifically based management of the water resources.
A study by the California Department of Fish and Game found that the water diversions played a key role in the deaths of some 77 thousand salmon.

Even better, is the exceptionally devastating video of the newscaster reading the copy while pictures of thousands of dead salmon lie prostrate in the water. You can click on the link to see the video.

Driving the news

nothstine — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:25:58 GMT

Blue Oregon's Jeff Alworth had an op-ed piece in yesterday's Oregonian about the increasing clout of bloggers vis-à-vis traditional journalism.

A lot of it is cast in "the farmer and the cowman should be friends" tone that never seems to move things forward as much as you'd hope, but he soon gets to the heart of the matter: centralization of control.

The central criticism of blogs concerns their power. Critics argue that, like single-issue PACs, blogs use a well-organized minority to dictate terms to politicians, adding to the polarization that plagues American politics. That's nonsense. Blogs by their very nature are a democratic medium. No one controls the content of the posts or comments. And there are a dozen or more influential Oregon blogs, all with their own writers, readers and commenters. Bloggers don't coordinate among themselves or often even know one another. If blogs exercise power, it's the power of regular citizens talking about issues that matter to them. That's no perversion of the political process -- it's a contribution to a healthy process. […]
The consolidation of power in the media, highlighted last week by Rupert Murdoch's purchase of The Wall Street Journal, underscores a troubling propensity in the Fourth Estate. Blogs, on the other hand, have been on the front lines in challenging sloppy, inaccurate or non-existent reporting. Because bloggers don't have limited column space or advertisers to please, they can doggedly -- some might say obsessively -- follow news stories they think are being overlooked.

Bingo.

It's partly about the simple opportunity for expression, and it's partly about the only recently discovered ability to mobilize surprisingly large amounts of small-dollar clean money for candidates and causes. What's probably more important in the long run is the growing ability of bloggers to drive underreported stories into the mainstream news media.

We don't have to look much farther than Loaded Orygun, where they've been having a pretty good week, for a case in point.

LO seemed like a voice in the wilderness for quite a while on the story of Smith's involvement in Dick Cheney's 2002 intervention in a Klamath Basin water-use issue that led to tens of thousands of dead salmon, a crippling of the salmon fishing industry whose effects continue to be felt today, possible Hatch Act violations, and more. Several Oregon blogs pushed the story, but LO pushed it hardest and loudest.

It drew a lot of attention within the blogosphere when the story was picked up by Orcinus, and front-paged at Daily Kos.

But the big news is that story is finally gaining ground outside the rarified atmosphere of blog writers and blog readers:

Last week the Eugene Register-Guard editorial board questioned Smith vigorously about the story, and Smith's answer--"I am not here to make any apologies"--made several heads snap upright, including downstream at the Oregonian (hardly a hotbed of Smith criticism), where the story was picked up.

Those eight words will come back to haunt Smith before 2008 is over. And the thread runs back to the Oregon blogs who got on the story early and kept hammering. Would the Oregonian be giving much attention to a 4-year-old story that casts their boy in a dodgy light if there wasn't some concern that the train was going to leave the station without them?

Despite the generally self-correcting nature of the blogosphere, its natural advantage over professional journalism as it's currently practiced in America, the mainstream media have the resources, the audience, and the presumption of authority.

Driving underreported or inconvenient stories onto the mainstream agenda remains an important source of blog influence.

(Cross-posted at p3.)

Klamath: Smith's Multiple Fibs in R-G Interview

torridjoe — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:08:27 GMT

Following up on the story we just posted, about Smith's interview with the Register-Guard on the Klamath fish kills, I notice that The O's Jeff Mapes gives a rare hat tip to a story created by a rival paper:

Smith said he was also unaware that Vice President Dick Cheney had intervened with federal officials to restore the flow of water to farmers. A recent Washington Post series that detailed Cheney's involvement in the Klamath issue led to a new round of congressional hearings that began last week.
Steve Pedery, conservation director of Oregon Wild, said that for Smith to say he has "no regrets about the biggest fish kill in Northwest history is just astonishing." He and other environmentalists pointed to a report by the California Department of Fish and Game that said the low flows played an important role in the die-off. Pedery also scoffed at Smith's claim that the fish kills occurred 18 months after water was diverted to farmers. He said the diversions started in March of 2002 and water levels in the river remained low when the die-off started in September of that year.

{more below}
I think Pedery pretty well takes care of the first fib--that the water cutoff and the fish kills were 18 months apart, too far for the latter to be affected by the former. Pedery points out that's a 300% overshoot on the timeline. But hey, distortion from Smith is nothing new; from the Klamath Herald News on May 8, 2001 (archive only) he once told a crowd that the government had intentionally poisoned Klamath ~~salmon~~ fish:

He didn't know, Smith told a crowd of 600 or more gathered to hear him at the Shilo Inn, how government could consider endangered a fish it had once tried to extinguish by means of poison.
Smith misspoke, and another Klamath Basin "rural myth'' was perpetuated.
There is no evidence that anyone ever tried to eliminate Lost River or shortnose suckers from Upper Klamath Lake, said Roger Smith, Klamath district biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Chris Matthews, a spokesman for Sen. Smith, said he did not know what was the basis for the senator's comment.

But if you believe Mapes' interpretation of what Smith said to the R-G, the most direct lie is that he didn't know what Cheney was up to: "Smith said he was also unaware that Vice President Dick Cheney had intervened with federal officials to restore the flow of water to farmers." In a word, bullshit. From the Herald News again, this time April 9th, 2001:

But Smith said the decision, bitter as it was, constituted a victory of sorts.
At the end of March the outlook was no water for anyone in the Basin, he explained.
"Dick Cheney stopped that order from coming down," Smith said. "He ordered the biologists back to Washington" to see if there were some way to get around the conclusion that all available water must go to protect endangered suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River. {emph mine}

Not only did Smith tell people he did in fact know, he turned out to be right--that's exactly what the Washington Post reported Cheney told an aide he was going to do, and it's what he ended up doing. And now he says he's unaware Cheney intervened?

The major media have taken a big first step; they've identified the issue and have begun asking questions. The important sequel should be the evaluation of his responses, compared to the record. I've gotten you started. How about it, folks?

Update, noon--
The DPO tells it like they sees it:

“Where is the honesty from Gordon Smith?” DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith asked. “In 2001 he couldn’t stop talking about his coordination with Vice President Cheney and the White House. Now, he says he barely worked with them. Gordon Smith has let the truth become a casualty in his re-election bid. His disregard for the truth is troubling and a disservice to Oregonians.”
MULTIPLE CHOICE: WHY IS GORDON SMITH BACKTRACKING?
Now, why would Smith backtrack from his 2001 and 2002 comments boasting about his ability to coordinate with the White House to divert Klamath River water to farmers - a move that decimated countless coastal fishing businesses and local economies, killed more than 70,000 salmon, and earned him an election victory?
A. Is it because of the reporting of the coordination among Smith, Cheney and the White House to abuse environmental and commercial resources for political gain?
“The Washington Post in June published a series of articles on Cheney's wielding of behind-the-scenes muscle, with one installment focusing on his involvement in the Klamath water crisis, which the paper said was motivated in part to bolster the 2002 re-election of fellow Republican Smith.”
(The Register-Guard, 8-8-07)
B. Is it because of the congressional investigation into the role Cheney played to steer votes for Smith?
“Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee are trying to determine whether Vice President Cheney's intervention in the Klamath River Basin's water management led to the die-off a few months later, which was the largest ever recorded in the West.
In 2002, Smith's lobbying for increased irrigation in the Southern Oregon region was a topic he raised during that year's campaign. In a TV ad, farmers praised the Republican lawmaker's efforts on their behalf.”
(The Register-Guard, 8-8-07)
C. Is it because he doesn’t want people to remember his coordination with Cheney, Karl Rove and the White House?
“In January 2002, at a retreat in West Virginia, Karl Rove gave a PowerPoint presentation to at least 50 managers at the Department of the Interior to discuss polling data, and emphasized the importance of getting Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican, reelected that year.
The way to get Smith reelected to another term, Rove reportedly told the Interior Department officials, would come via the agency's support of a highly controversial measure: diverting water from the Klamath River Basin to farms in the area that were experiencing unusually dry conditions, thereby supporting the GOP's agricultural base.”
(Truthout, 6-20-07)
D. Is it all of the above?

Smith Responds on Klamath: Blow Me, Fish

torridjoe — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:00:00 GMT

Halelujah and mercy me, someone was listening:

Sen. Gordon Smith said Tuesday that he has no regrets about the diversion of water from the Klamath River that was intended to protect fish but instead went to farmers.
The 2002 water diversion - and subsequent die-off of 77,000 salmon and eventual suspension of coastal fishing - was the subject of hearings that began last week in a U.S. House committee.
In 2002, Smith's lobbying for increased irrigation in the Southern Oregon region was a topic he raised during that year's campaign. In a TV ad, farmers praised the Republican lawmaker's efforts on their behalf.
advertisement
But with next year's Senate campaign approaching, the issue is more double-edged for Smith. The Democratic Party of Oregon highlighted last week's congressional hearing by calling on Smith to apologize and answer for his role.
In a meeting with The Register-Guard editorial board, the Oregon senator offered his most expansive explanation to date since since the issue's revival in recent weeks. Smith defended his and Cheney's efforts to help Klamath basin farmers salvage their crops during drought.
"I am not here to make any apologies," said Smith, who faces re-election next year. "I am proud to fight for the farmers or any group of Americans whom the federal government says has no standing, no water. I just find that offensive."
Smith downplayed his connection to Cheney in that chapter. He said he did not recall speaking with the vice president, but did lobby President Bush during a flight on Air Force One to allow some of the basin's water dedicated for imperiled sucker fish to be diverted to withering croplands and pastures.
"I was not familiar with all the things the vice president was doing," Smith said, referring to the Washington Post's account.

Yeah, maybe not ALL of them, like when he went to the john on October 3, 2001 or whether he went for an after dinner walk at 5 or 6pm on Tuesday, April 17th, 2002--but he knew the important stuff about what they were going to do in the Klamath situation. Playboy centerfold photos don't get the kind of close airbushing attention that statement must have received, in order to avoid the real issue.

But there's a far more pernicious avoidance of the truth and deceitful defensiveness with which Smith addresses the questions...
{more}
First of all, let's quickly make sure everyone's up to speed on what we know: in 2001, Gordon Smith asked for and received help from the White House (specifically Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) to find an executive end-around on the Endangered Species ruling that protected water flows on the Klamath River for salmon habitat. When the water was turned back on in 2002, Smith stood with Gale Norton of Interior to turn the irrigator valve. He ran ads taking credit for it--right up until the judiciary ruled that the executive had illegally overstepped its bounds in doing what they did.

So now here it is 2007, and the editors of the R-G are giving Smith a chance to explain what the heck happened there, with him backing a plan that was eventually linked to the largest adult salmon kill-off of the west. What does he say? "I have a responsibility for humankind." (More on that false framing in a minute.) He stamps his feet and declares he just won't desert the farmers over a fish he says died because of "gill disease." And then he just opened his mouth and turned truth on its head:

Smith also defended Cheney's actions.
"He is an authorized authority of the executive branch of government and he was trying to do what I was trying to do: get some minimal relief to the farm community of Klamath Falls," Smith said. "He had every legal right to do it, and if mistakes were made, those are to be regretted.

Had every legal right? Come again? What part of executive overreach escaped you when the plan was overturned? Politics and faulty reasoning over scientific merit, remember? I'm actually kind of disappointed that the editorial board didn't call Smith on it when he tried to claim what happened was legal, for heaven's sake.

Even under the frame Smith wants you to have--fish vs people--he appears remarkably untroubled and non-considerate of the people who make a living off of fish, or the people who come to catch them, as if dead fish are unimportant to Oregon, and the only people involved in the decision were farmers.

If you are in the commercial fishing industry in California or Oregon, this attitude from Smith should bother the living shit out of you. Blames the die off on a disease (where's that icthyology degree from again, Gordon?) and then says it's "to be regretted" if their mistake was a kick to the groin of the fishing and fish tourism industries? But he's on the side of humans, so you're SOL. I don't care how you feel about gay marriage and taxes, this man just said fuck your way of life, I had potato farmers I needed to win over for re-election. How's that hit ya?

A very deep tip of the cap to the editors and David Steves of the Register-Guard for putting the discussion over Klamath into the mainstream consciousness. This will not go away--certainly not with a defensive sneer that he had humans to protect.

Are these Oregon's values?

Notice Building on Fish-Kill Smith; A Quick, Sordid Primer

torridjoe — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:30:00 GMT

Can I say for the 10th time that the Democratic Party of Oregon has become an aggressive, rapid response MACHINE since Meredith and Marc took over? They are taking charge of the task to define and explain Gordon Smith's real work in the Senate, and folks are starting to listen:

Two days after DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith called on U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) to apologize for coordinating with Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney and President Bush to earn votes by endangering Oregon’s fishing industries and salmon population, Smith is still silent on the issue.
But the media is raising more and more questions for Smith about his coordination with Cheney and other White House leaders to choose politics over science to earn him votes.
“Gordon Smith should not stay silent on his political abuse of the Klamath River,” DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith said. “In 2002, Gordon Smith couldn’t stop running television ads and boasting to Oregonians about turning on the water. Now that 70,000 salmon are dead, countless fishermen have lost their livelihood and the U.S. House is looking into his actions, he’s suddenly media shy. Gordon Smith should take responsibility for his actions. Gordon Smith should explain when he first contacted Dick Cheney and the White House, what he asked of Dick Cheney, and why Dick Cheney made personal calls on his behalf to divert the water to earn Smith re-election.”

{more below}
The hearings, and the targeted finger pointing, has gotten the attention of the media:

“The Committee on Natural Resources is chaired by West Virginia Democrat Nick Rahall. He said the point of the hearing was to look into allegations that the Bush administration has a habit of letting politics not only influence policy, but the science supporting that policy.”
(OPB News, 7-31-07)

“The OR-Dems are taking Gordon Smith to task on SalmonGate. Outside of Oregon, this may not seem like a big deal, but inside Oregon this is huge. Smith's efforts contributed to the decimation of fishing businesses in Oregon, and Smith has been conspicuously silent on the issue as a Congressional investigation on the issue approaches. Stay tuned.”
(Senate 2008 Guru, 7-31-07)

“On Monday, the state Democratic Party demanded an apology from Oregon Republican Sen. Gordon Smith for allegedly playing a part in the death of 70,000 salmon in 2001.”
(The Bulletin, 8-1-07)

“In a statement Monday, Meredith Wood Smith, chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Oregon, called for Smith to apologize for his involvement in the Klamath.
‘If Gordon Smith can open an irrigation system to release thousands of gallons of water,’ she said, ‘surely he can open his mouth and apologize to Oregonians.’"
(The Oregonian, 8-1-07)

“In January 2002, Walden and Republican Senator Gordon Smith met with President Bush on Air Force One to talk about the Klamath River Basin. The President mentioned Smith and Walden at a rally in Portland.
George W Bush: ‘I share their concern about people who make a living off the land. And I told these two good men that we'll do everything we can to make sure water is available for people who farm.’ (Applause)
The Wall Street Journal reported in a 2003 story that a day after the President spoke those words, White House advisor Karl Rove gave a PowerPoint presentation to about 50 managers at the Department of the Interior.
According to the Journal, Rove made it clear whose side the President was taking in the Klamath River controversy. This year, the Washington Post did a series of stories on the behind-the-scenes influence of Vice President Dick Cheney. The paper said he was on the phone with mid-level federal officials talking about the Klamath River Basin and got regular updates about it.
In April 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation turned on the spigots for the farmers. That fall saw the largest ever fish die off in the American west on the river.”
(OPB News, 7-31-07)

That's what the media are saying, and it's a good start. It needs to be directed towards Smith now. What's his response? How does he explain what he did and why he backed that approach? After all, it was declared illegal and overturned.

If you're just joining us, and are taking the Bend Bulletin's approach that Smith is "allegedly" involved, here are published facts:

In March 2001, Gordon Smith wrote the White House for help with the looming shortfall for farmers in the Klamath Basin. He asked specifically for help from the domestic policy team, headed by Karl Rove, and highlighted the "regulatory drought*"--since the decision was made by courts and science to favor the flow for fish instead of farmers. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reported that Rove and Dick Cheney became involved at this time.

When the water was turned off Smith told angry farmers that Dick Cheney had "ordered the biologists back to Washington,**" to see if there was a way around the supremacy of science in the decision. This was in fact precisely what Cheney was telling an aide, according to the Post.

While the water was off, Smith filed several legislative efforts on a number of fronts--from writing bills that would suppress the science that formed the foundation of the original biologists' conclusion, to removing the oversight of the Secretary of the Interior, to simply turning back the regulatory clock to 1993, when the rules favored the farmers.

When the water came back on--strangely by using the exact strategy Smith foretold in his legislation--Smith was there at the gates with the Secretary of Interior, cutting the ribbon. And when the election came around, he told anyone who would listen that he "carried our water***" for farmers, getting it to them instead of fish and tribal concerns.

After the diversion to irrigation, as many as 70,000 salmon died in what is the largest known adult salmon kill in Western history. The fisheries industry has not recovered, and is in such peril as to require federal bailout dollars--dollars fetched by Gordon Smith.

These are knowns. There is no escaping the truth that a) Smith was involved, b) Smith tried to work around the science, c) that attempt was ruled illegal, and d) in the meantime fish died and an industry went into shock.

Response, Senator?

*Klamath Herald News, 3/30/2001
**Washington Post, 6/27/2007
***Smith ad, 2002 Senate campaign

DPO Calls For Smith Apology on Eve of Fish Kill Hearings

torridjoe — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:05:01 GMT

As you may recall, recently US Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5) asked for hearings into Dick Cheney's involvement in the Klamath fish kills, and those hearings start tomorrow. But the Democratic Party of Oregon is not satisfied with a look into Cheney's dirty laundry; they're more interested in the unindicted co-conspirator, so to speak:

“As the committee meets tomorrow to investigate Vice President Dick Cheney’s move to open the Klamath River irrigation system to earn Gordon Smith votes, Smith can finally apologize to Oregonians for abusing an environmental and commercial resource for political gain,” [DPO Chair Meredith] Wood Smith said. “In 2002, Gordon Smith couldn’t stop boasting about turning on the water. Now that 70,000 salmon are dead, countless fishermen have lost their livelihood and the U.S. House is looking into his actions, he’s suddenly media shy. Gordon Smith should take responsibility for his actions. If Gordon Smith can open an irrigation system to release thousands of gallons of water, surely he can open his mouth and apologize to Oregonians.”

Go, Meredith, go!
{more after the jump}
The press release from DPO is the first sign by any official Democratic body that I'm aware of, to FINALLY say what we've been telling you for weeks: Gordon Smith cannot get off the hook he baited for all those fish in 2001.

This is excellent news; hopefully where our voice was not loud enough, the party's vox populi can entice some in the state media to do a little journalism for a change and look closer at Smith's role. They helpfully lay out the case using contemporaneous reportage from the Klamath Herald and News--the same articles we unearthed to show just how active Smith really was.

But now he's gone strangely silent...

Now that reporters and congressmen are uncovering the politics of the Klamath River decisions, Smith is reluctant to take credit. No more TV ads. No more ribbon cuttings with administration officials celebrating Cheney’s water plan. No more interviews on the subject he campaigned on in 2002.
“Gordon Smith should use this opportunity to apologize to Oregonians for coordinating with the White House to earn votes by releasing the water that killed those fish and destroyed local economies,” Wood Smith said. “And he should pledge to never again abuse environmental resources for political gain.”

I assume the chances of a Smith apology on this are about as likely as Cheney showing up for the hearings preparing to take full responsibility, saying "My bad; go ahead and bring me up on charges if you need to." But asking him for one allows us to ask why he won't give one, once it's clear he won't. And hopefully the call for an apology will re-establish for those who've forgotten that when you think dead fish, think Gordon Smith.

Update, 530pm--
Like I said, don't expect Dick to show.

Salmon Story Percolates in Southern Oregon

torridjoe — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:45:30 GMT

They're waiting for those Cheney fish kill hearings to start down in Ashland:

As House Democrats investigate whether political interference may have led to the die-off of about 70,000 salmon on the Klamath River, local observers worry fragile negotiations aimed at ending long-simmering fights over water in Southern Oregon could be derailed.
Specifically, the U.S. House of Representatives is investigating whether Vice President Dick Cheney secretly intervened in the development of a 10-year water plan for the naturally arid Klamath Basin.
John DeVoe, executive director of WaterWatch of Oregon, said the Bush administration has a long history of "meddling with sensitive scientific judgment," and not just in the Klamath Basin.
"Interfering with the judgment of scientists for political purposes is a subject that legitimately should be looked at," DeVoe said, adding that the continuing negotiations are a separate issue.
Glen Spain, a spokesman for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations in Eugene, questions whether much good can come from the congressional probe.
"Congress deserves to know what happened: Policy needs to be driven by science, not politics," Spain said, adding that his concern is that months of talks could be jeopardized if the water issue becomes politicized once again.
"We cannot be lurching from crisis to crisis," Spain said. "There is only so much water, and all the politics in the world will not make more rain," adding that a settlement is the best path forward for fishermen and farmers.
Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said he too is worried that the hearings could have an impact on negotiations by opening old wounds.
"This cannot help but end in finger-pointing," Addington said. "And nothing good comes out of that."

{more}
Note the people who were quoted: the scientist/activist perspective, the commercial fishery perspective and the agro interests. (One thing that's missing here is the tribal interest, and that's something we all--LO included--are guilty of on this subject). Since the science favors the fish, the activist is pressing for investigation. The fisherman shares the same respect for the realities of nature, but has no illusions about any remedy coming of it. And the farm backers, having lost on the issue, don't even want to get into it again.

I've been told this isn't the last piece on the subject, more specifically involving Smith. If there is a part of the state where the story has the most resonance it's in the southwestern corner, so I'm glad to hear the region is keeping track of how it all went down. And folks, when you find out how it went down then remind yourself that Gordon Smith asked for it, pushed it, helped it and celebrated it--then took credit for it, asked you to re-elect him because of it.

Cheney asked to testify on Klamath fish kill

carla — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:13:10 GMT

From the House Committee on Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, today confirmed that Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Member of the Committee, has been invited to testify at a July 31 oversight hearing on his apparent role in influencing scientific and policy decisions at the Department of the Interior.
As reported in The Washington Post on June 27, 2007, Cheney’s intervention in the development of a 10-year water plan for the Klamath River resulted in the 2002 die-off of an estimated 77,000 salmon near the California-Oregon border – and the subsequent collapse of the West Coast salmon-fishing industry.
The hearing will seek to examine the causes and consequences of political intervention in the decision-making process at the Interior Department, an alarming trend the Committee began exploring at a May 9 hearing that delved into the role of the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in politicizing the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Cheney's lack of a moral compass and conscience will certainly keep him from showing up to any such oversight hearing. But getting his refusal on the record matters.

Stay tuned for possible dot-connecting with Gordon Smith and Greg Walden on this, too.